/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3861841]

Some of my professors say that academia has the tendency to appear that it's nothing but about egos. Is this true, /sci/?

Pic related, it's me just before doing my thesis.

[Anonymous No.3861844]

>>3861841

One of my profs said that a lot of research is just a bunch of mental masturbation.

He's right in a lot of sense.

[Anonymous No.3861868]

Publish papers so you can prove your credentials that gets you more funding so you can publish more papers.

[Anonymous No.3862453]

I'm probably a lot smarter than those professors if that's true.

[Anonymous No.3862460]

Well in academia you can be fired for coming up with new theories, especially if they conflict with the excepted theories.

[Anonymous No.3862523]

>>3862460

What? No you can't. That is the entire reason for the tenure system. If you want to be an edgy teen you should go do it somewhere where people don't know the basic structure of academia.

As for OP's question. It depends on the field. The sciences are LESS guilty of this than some liberal arts fields (particularly literature, which can be pretty fucking ridiculous from some of the stories I've heard from my sister). Though an element of it is certainly still present in each scientific field. It generally gets better with the hardness of the science, but theoretical physics actually has quite a lot of this going on relative to its position in this scale. It has to do with society's ideas about it, I guess. When most people think of science they think of physicists, astrophysicists, or engineers. This is reflected in the nature of popsci, which is almost entirely about physics. There are virtually no documentaries talking about chemistry, for example. This has lead to a big head for some physicists, however, fortunately, most of the people with the big egos are mediocre physicists at best. The greats almost never have that attitude, though it certainly does happen.

[Anonymous No.3862575]

>>3861841
>say that academia has the tendency to appear that it's nothing but about egos

Firstly, i'm just curious as to why you think this is wrong?
I mean it is A LOT better than being nothing but money.

If you are working for nothing but your own satisfaction, it seems fairly admirable to me.
Remember, working for ego is a lot different than working for glory.

[Anonymous No.3862586]

>>3862575

While your interperation of the question is technically correct, and while that is the best kind of correct, I don't think that that's what OP, nor OP's professor meant and I think you know that.

[Anonymous No.3862590]

>>3862586
I am not confident i know what he meant :/

If there was no element to the ego or pleasure it's hard to see what would motivate most academia

[Anonymous No.3862593]

just from going on /sci/, a board full of college students, you can easily tell physics has the people with the biggest egos

[Anonymous No.3862611]

In my experience, humanities people tend to be pretentious while science people are much more open minded and MUCH friendlier! When I say "science" I mean chemistry, physics, life sciences, health sciences, anything that requires enough chemistry and/or physics to make an English major's head spin.

Perhaps science people are nicer because they can actually LEAVE the university setting and still use their credentials. Humanities majors are trapped in the ivory tower unless they want to go back to their high school jobs. The "real" world doesn't feel like they "need" them and they don't feel wanted or useful or like they fit in. Of course I just made all that up. Who knows?

[Anonymous No.3862620]

>>3862575

Though provoking. Great points. People who are all about money are WAY more annoying than people who are generally pretentious!

At least the pretentious academic has a soul!

[Anonymous No.3862623]

>>3862611

Allow me define the word hypocrite for you.....

[Anonymous No.3862631]

>>3862593

Well, no, this is a very biased population. Most of the people on this board are first or second year undergraduate which maybe as many second and third year undergrads as high school seniors. Very few of them have any real expertise in the field or actually know all that much. Even fewer have actual research experience. Further, this is a board where part of the ingrained behavior is dick-waving about one's field. The fact that you see more people here bragging about being physicists (when they really mean beginning physics students) they are really more reflecting the views of the broader population in choosing the one that seems most impressive.

[Anonymous No.3862629]

>>3862575
>Firstly, i'm just curious as to why you think this is wrong?
Who said I thought it was wrong? I want to know if it's just his opinion or if other people here felt the same, because I kind of agree with him.

[Anonymous No.3862648]

>>3862631

Wow, I really should have proofread that post. Please excuse the random shits in the manner in which I was making statements and typos, I'm tired.

[Anonymous No.3862651]

>>3862629

Sorry, i just assumed you had some problem with it, if it doesn't matter i couldn't see why you would make a thread.

[Anonymous No.3862655]

>>3862623

Ha ha. Good point.

[Anonymous No.3862662]

>>3862651
._.

[Anonymous No.3862683]

>>3862631
Yeah but people like the ones you find on /sci/ do actually get into the field as much as the next guy. This is going to be anecdotal evidence I'm providing, but: I had a friend who went into the medical field after high school and came out with not only a doctorate and a job at our state hospital, but also elitist and belittling our friends for going with something like photography for example, or psychology, or art, etc. Stereotypical, I know, but he's had such a biased view against them since as well alienated himself from them and only kept around those he met academia.

The point is that the kind of blokes you find on /sci/ do get into their field regularly.

[Anonymous No.3862715]

>>3862683


It's something that bugs me quite a lot in the modern age.
It is now looked down to try and be the elite in your field.

Is it not a 'moral-career' to try and be the best? Is it not a worthy motive to be the best person you can (obviously you are limited to your concept of best).

I am not defending boofheads who think they have more intrinsic value because they are better in a specific field, just the idea that working for ego is not unreasonable.

You will find the most elite people in their fields are usually very humble. A good scientist is aware of the limitations of his data and findings, a good person is aware of their limitations and the contingent factors that determined who they are today.

[Anonymous No.3862737]

I have a Masters in Biochemistry, earned in 1995, if that lends the following any cred:

It is very much about ego, but not a clash of egos, although those occasionally get some spotlight.

But the great majority of pure researchers work in huge buildings full of labs and offices of other such researchers. As a grad student, you work at a lab bench in a lab with other grad students who are all VERY bright and hard-working. You all have exciting projects. Later, as a PhD, you direct those young men, guide them, and take a usually well-earned share of the credit for their discoveries.

But as the years go by, it becomes clearer who's producing stuff that changes the world in some way, big or small. You want to be among those people, or you feel like nothing. Yours is the ego you contend against.

[Anonymous No.3862744]

Oh god you look adorable when you're doing your thesis come over here please.

[Anonymous No.3862753]

>>3862737

and then you realized you wasted your life doing bench research

fuck. that. shit. took me less than a year to figure out fwheeee

[Anonymous No.3862801]

Lol was it a pyscologist ?

[Anonymous No.3862809]

>>3862801
A mathematics professor with a bachelor's in chemical engineering, and does some physics lectures when one of the professors are out sick.

[Anonymous No.3862827]

>>3862753

Some people LIKE doing bench research.